Bigfoot - The Patterson-Gimlin Film

[Bill Munns]

Replies

starting with

Aepervius: post 12790

People can do research, and talk about that research, including having opinions. We generally trust that we are talking to people who can sort it out. If you can't, my sympathies.

Carcharodon 12791

"Bill Munns:

"I have offered detailed analysis based on my expertise in the relevant fields and in my considered opinion the P/G footage cannot be easily written off as a hoax."

Just to clarify, that's actually your paraphrasing on my opinion, but it is correct. Just needed to qualify those are not my exact words, nor an exact quote of mine.


Kitakaze: post 12792

"I also think your reconstruction of Giganto reflected your beliefs about a possible connection to bigfoot. "

You think wrong. It reflects an attempt to reconstruct a known fossil species, based on other known primates (including gorillas and baboons) and the fossils themselves.

Regards your question on post #12794

I haven not studied the Hoffman Subject at all. No intentions to do so at present.

Astrophotographer post 12800

"So far, Munns has offerred nothing that suggest his OPINION is correct."

So far, I have not offered a conclusive opinion. You are imagining one.
One does not need to justify "I"m still trying to figure it out!"

Diogenes: Post #12812

"So, you only take people who agree with you, seriously ?


But, you expect us to take you seriously ?"

Taking a person seriously is not the same as agreeing with that person. If you had really paid an ounce of attention to all my writings, you would see I welcome differences of opinion. I talk to a lot of people who disagree with me. I've been doing that for the last week here. But sometimes you realize there is a disconnect between yourself and another person, and you just can't make a mental connection. It happens. You and I just don't seem to connect, in our train of thought.

rgann post 312818

"I will be sure when and if I quote these statements to keep them in context; I have had conversations at BFF and with people here that felt these items (in and of themselves) where not possible using late 1960’s materials and technology. Just as a side note, I am often surprised at how that era is considered archaic. Things like the space program and Duane Hansens work must have been anomalies."

The principle issue of "materials weren't available then" is the furcloth one made suits from. Today's suit technology usually employes all-way spandex based stretch fur, from NFT company, and it makes excellent suits. The older artificial furs of the 1960's didn't have this, and the more standard furcloths of the time don't have anywhere as much potential for movement or any apparent motion suggesting musculature movement. That is the primary material issue in the "didn't exist then" argument.

Bill

 

[LTC8K6]

Enlarging an image doesn't affect the limits of film resolution.

Didn't say it did. I also left out enhanced. Many are enhanced as well.

All the enlarged images we see are digital anyways.

They're digital in that they are being seen on a computer, but few of them were enlarged digitally. Most were enlarged optically.

What would be the difference in resolution between Roger's foot and Patty at 200 feet?

Good shooting or bad?

The image size and its physical dimensions must be factored in.

Not for the basic film resolution in lines/mm, imo.

We can see some features better than others for many reasons. Shutter speed, motion, lighting, lens quality, etc. affects what can be identified on film. Attempting to nail down what detail we can theoretically see on film isn't so simple. We not only see toes at 150+ feet from the camera, we see the shadows between them. That's certainly better than + or - 4" of resolution. Patty gets much closer to the camera than the perfectfoot frame. Many other features get over/under exposed and motion blurred. It's a crapshoot.

That's basically what Fahrenbach said, imo.

We don't know that the toes can be seen that well in the original film. It's likely that they are an enhancement, imo.

Beckjord's perfect toe frame. No toe detail at all.

http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/pgfilmframesinseries/pgf61ed.jpg

 

[LTC8K6]

Perfect toe is frame 61 or 62, would that be 150 feet from the camera?

 

[Crowlogic]

So, you only take people who agree with you, seriously ?


But, you expect us to take you seriously ?

I'm not going to take you Diogenes seriously until you prove who first said "It stunk. Roger skinned out a dead red horse". If not Bob H. then who?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Being an astrophotographer I thought you would pick up on this. The film resolution limits doesn't equate to inches unless you factor in the distances from the camera and the image size. I'm not discounting Fahrenbach's resolution estimate of 63 lines/mm (+ or - ?) but then you have to measure Patty's image size and correlate that to a known physical height. So what frame represents the minimum distance from the camera? It seems that Patty's height and distance from the camera aren't even addressed in Fahrenbach's blurb. Fahrenbach is obviously not a film expert.

I believe that the image everyone wants to look at is the "look back" image as it appears to be the clearest. He seems to be working as a bigfoot expert and written many articles on the subject. I believe his phd is in Zoology. Therefore, I can only assume he is using numbers that all the bigfoot experts on the PGF have presented. However, if you can provide the numbers of estimated distances as well as height and actual image size on the film, you may be able to arrive at the numbers involved or come up with something different. If so, that would be an excellent argument against his analysis.

 

[Astrophotographer]

Astro,

I’m not exactly sure what you are getting at here;

“You can not make an EXACT duplicate of the original film, which means the resolution will not be as good as the original. Therefore, it is unlikely that the 1-2" resolution was achieved and probably was more like 3-4" at best.”

What I meant was the copy that was made of the original film, which everyone is using for analysis, is not going to be as good at resolving details as the original film. By using a copy, the actual resolving power of the original film is going to lost to some extent. It depends on the film it is copied onto and the processes involved.

 

[tsig]

Replies

starting with

Aepervius: post 12790

People can do research, and talk about that research, including having opinions. We generally trust that we are talking to people who can sort it out. If you can't, my sympathies.

Carcharodon 12791

"Bill Munns:

"I have offered detailed analysis based on my expertise in the relevant fields and in my considered opinion the P/G footage cannot be easily written off as a hoax."

Just to clarify, that's actually your paraphrasing on my opinion, but it is correct. Just needed to qualify those are not my exact words, nor an exact quote of mine.


Kitakaze: post 12792

"I also think your reconstruction of Giganto reflected your beliefs about a possible connection to bigfoot. "

You think wrong. It reflects an attempt to reconstruct a known fossil species, based on other known primates (including gorillas and baboons) and the fossils themselves.

Regards your question on post #12794

I haven not studied the Hoffman Subject at all. No intentions to do so at present.

Astrophotographer post 12800

"So far, Munns has offerred nothing that suggest his OPINION is correct."

So far, I have not offered a conclusive opinion. You are imagining one.
One does not need to justify "I"m still trying to figure it out!"

Diogenes: Post #12812

"So, you only take people who agree with you, seriously ?


But, you expect us to take you seriously ?"

Taking a person seriously is not the same as agreeing with that person. If you had really paid an ounce of attention to all my writings, you would see I welcome differences of opinion. I talk to a lot of people who disagree with me. I've been doing that for the last week here. But sometimes you realize there is a disconnect between yourself and another person, and you just can't make a mental connection. It happens. You and I just don't seem to connect, in our train of thought.

rgann post 312818

"I will be sure when and if I quote these statements to keep them in context; I have had conversations at BFF and with people here that felt these items (in and of themselves) where not possible using late 1960’s materials and technology. Just as a side note, I am often surprised at how that era is considered archaic. Things like the space program and Duane Hansens work must have been anomalies."

The principle issue of "materials weren't available then" is the furcloth one made suits from. Today's suit technology usually employes all-way spandex based stretch fur, from NFT company, and it makes excellent suits. The older artificial furs of the 1960's didn't have this, and the more standard furcloths of the time don't have anywhere as much potential for movement or any apparent motion suggesting musculature movement. That is the primary material issue in the "didn't exist then" argument.

Bill

It's hard to connect because you are speaking with two different voices. Your argument from authority doesn't cut it because your bias is obvious.

I say it's a man in a suit you say not. Readers take your choice.

 

[Astrophotographer]

So far, I have not offered a conclusive opinion. You are imagining one.
One does not need to justify "I"m still trying to figure it out!"

Yet I get the impression from some of your posting that you feel that it is not a man in a suit? Is that correct or not?

If it is your opinion, that it is not a man in a suit (or lean towards this opinion), then you need to express what makes you have this opinion. As I have stated, I am not impressed so far at what I have seen.

If you are not of this opinion then why don't you tell everyone that you are studying the problem/doing research and that you have no opinion whatsoever on what is on the film at this point. Then the case is closed and you can be on your merry way.

 

[Bill Munns]

tsig

"I say it's a man in a suit you say not."

Please read before you quote and comment.

I said ""I"m still trying to figure it out!"

 

[Bill Munns]

Astrophotographer

"If you are not of this opinion then why don't you tell everyone that you are studying the problem/doing research and that you have no opinion whatsoever on what is on the film at this point. Then the case is closed and you can be on your merry way."


My advice to Aepervius applies to you as well.

I said "People can do research, and talk about that research, including having opinions. We generally trust that we are talking to people who can sort it out. If you can't, my sympathies."

Everybody on this forum has opinions. Does that mean nobody on this forum is allowed to research or study things?

Get real. Doing reseach doesn't forbid me from still talking to people, and doesn't restrict me from offering opinions about what we talk about. You're the one who won't let go of this, not me. You are the one so intimidated by my opinions that you think you must try to tell me I can't even mention them.

Give it a rest. My research will continue, on my schedule, I'll continue to post information about it's progress, and i will continue to talk to people, and offer opinions if I think the conversation warrants such.

 

[tsig]

tsig

"I say it's a man in a suit you say not."

Please read before you quote and comment.

I said ""I"m still trying to figure it out!"

Well I guess I'm one up on you since I know. How long does it take to look a snippet of film?

 

[Bill Munns]

tsig

"Well I guess I'm one up on you since I know. How long does it take to look a snippet of film?"

What more can I say? I am in awe of your mental faculties, that you can solve a 40 year mystery with a mere look at a snippit of film.



Bill

 

[ugot2bekidding]

Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but I didn't think it warranted a new thread. Was there any follow-up to this 'hillbilly shoots two Bigfoots' story?

Doh! Need one more post..link incomming

 

[ugot2bekidding]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...180&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

[tsig]

tsig

"Well I guess I'm one up on you since I know. How long does it take to look a snippet of film?"

What more can I say? I am in awe of your mental faculties, that you can solve a 40 year mystery with a mere look at a snippit of film.



Bill

No mystery just a hoax.

Just what evidence do you have beyond the film?

You imply that I am wrong for using the film as evidence. Well, what else have you got?

You came here bragging about research. So?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Get real. Doing reseach doesn't forbid me from still talking to people, and doesn't restrict me from offering opinions about what we talk about. You're the one who won't let go of this, not me. You are the one so intimidated by my opinions that you think you must try to tell me I can't even mention them.

I stated you can resolve this by stating what your opinion is because you feel that I (and others) misrepresent what you have stated in the past. I did not state you can not offer you opinions, I am just stating that if you have an opinion one way or the other, then you should be able to justify why you think that way. If you have no opinion, that is fine as well.

You keep saying people misquote you but then you seem to answer in riddles or evade the questions. No wonder people can't figure out what you think. I asked a question, which was pretty straight forward and you do not answer it and suggest that I am afraid of your "opinions". Perhaps you have a far too lofty opinion of yourself and your work.

Now, I will ask the question again and hopefully I can get an answer without all the hand gesturing and whining.

"Yet I get the impression from some of your posting that you feel that it is not a man in a suit? Is that correct or not?"

Feel free to answer the question so I can understand where you stand and, therefore, quote your position correctly. I don't want to be accused of misrepresenting what you state, which seems to be a common complaint you produce when people talk about you and your work/research/opinions.

 

[Crowlogic]

Among other things an add placed in the NY Times requsting the whereabouts of the master of the Patterson Gimlin film may just produce the master. For over 30 years it was thought that the uncut master of DA Pennbecker's Bob Dylan film Eat The Document was long gone and only the poorly edited version existed. However not true Pennbecker apparantly didn't dispose of the master tracks after the edited version was set for the release that never materialized. So perhaps there's some office worker in some law firm that's been wondering what in Sam Hill is on that old reel of film and who the heck was Patterson etc etc.

The Hillbilly that shot 2 bigfoot must be Buggs and he was a Texan. Really can anybody believe anything that comes out of Texas?

Additonally a proper digitalization of the better existing PGF copies if done using NASA type enhancment equipment would work wonders.

 

[Óðinn]

Didn't say it did. I also left out enhanced. Many are enhanced as well.

Enhancement isn't such a dirty word. No harm in enhancing detail that's actually there, such as color contrast. Do you think the toes were born out of enhancement? A costume foot can have toes.

They're digital in that they are being seen on a computer, but few of them were enlarged digitally. Most were enlarged optically.

In the end they are all digitally scanned. Enlargement isn't a problem, enhancement can be.

Good shooting or bad?

My point is you can see more detail on objects closer to the camera.

Not for the basic film resolution in lines/mm, imo.

What about inches?

That's basically what Fahrenbach said, imo.

Fahrenbach tried to tell us what we can't possibly see. But he didn't qualify it, imo.

We don't know that the toes can be seen that well in the original film. It's likely that they are an enhancement, imo.

Not if the enhancement is merely a color contrast. This only affects detail that is actually there but over/under exposed. It would be quite a coincidence if a general color enhancement created toe shadows exactly where they belonged. No biggie anyways, costume feet can have toes.

Beckjord's perfect toe frame. No toe detail at all.

Well I'm not paying $1million for his crappy copy. Or else he created an inferior still from it. Or both.

Perfect toe is frame 61 or 62, would that be 150 feet from the camera?

Probably more. Patty's image in frame 352 is considered to be over 100' from the camera. Her image in frame 61 is considerably smaller, hence she's considerably farther away. Here's a few size comparisons from the LMS. The image on the far left isn't 61 but it's close. I'm surprised that we can see any toe definition at that distance. Lucky or what? Casts even more doubt on the accuracy of the Titmus map, imo.

 

[carcharodon]

And I have read quite a few OPINIONS from Munns peers that say it is a man in a suit.

Yes. You have read brief 'opinions'...based on pre concieved objections that 'bigfoot' doesn't exist...and no more than that.

You have NOT read very detailed and expansive analysis from Bill Munns' "piers" concerning the P/G footage.

Link to them if you have.

Conflicting opinions from suit experts means the issue is unresolved.

Bill Munns has offered expansive detailed analysis and has answered open questions as and when..

So far, Munns has offerred nothing that suggest his OPINION is correct.

He has offered far more detailed and expansive analysis than his 'piers' have.

1-0 to Bill Munns.

 

[Bill Munns]

Astrophotographer

""Yet I get the impression from some of your posting that you feel that it is not a man in a suit? Is that correct or not?""

Your impression is wrong. I don't know if the figure in the film is a human in a suit or the real thing. I am genuinely undecided at this time.

Clear enough, or is "undecided" not allowed?